31

Start with an invalid public key Bitcoin addresses are the pubkeyhash (not pubkey) plus version and checksum information, encoded in base 58. Bitcoin address = version + RIPEMD-160(SHA-256( Public Key )) + checksum The steps for converting a public key to an address can be found here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address Since the address uses the ...


14

A non-malicious reason to deliberately destroy notable amounts of Bitcoins would be for a hypothetical alternative blockchain that recognizes Bitcoins sent to a special address as newly generated coins. One could for example try to establish a new "Altcoin" which is incompatible to Bitcoin, but every private key that signs a Bitcoin transaction to a special ...


10

Sorry Alex, but you're wrong on the question being asked. It's trivial to put bitcoins "beyond use" so that they can never be spent again. All you would have to do is send the bitcoins to a made up address, which no one would have a key to. This has already been done, since coins have been sent to addresses which are almost certainly unowned (like the ...


10

The most secure way to destroy bitcoins is to send them to a script that can never return true, and which includes the reference code that confirms the goal of destroying these coins. I don't know of readily available software tools that can do that, and I'm not sure the network will accept these transactions. Here's a simple method everyone can try at home:...


9

Certain escrow techniques rely on one party being able to "destroy" these bitcoins, without being able to steal them. For example I could put 10 bitcoins in escrow, giving a second person the ability to destroy them. Now if that second party lends me, say, 5 bitcoins, I can't simply run away from my debts without incurring a loss larger then the debt itself, ...


8

There are four basic ways, and they all work: Come up with an address that passes the basic sanity checks but is internally invalid. You can know for sure that no key could possibly match this address. Put strings of characters in the address that are way beyond what anyone could generate in a vanity address. For example, if the Bitcoin address has "...


7

I don't think your threat model makes sense. If you "send me Bitcoins I can't claim", you've done the equivalent of nothing at all, except you've wasted some of your own Bitcoins in the process. Currently, clients will only recognize Bitcoins as being sent to them if they can confirm they can claim them. Non-standard transactions (those with scripts other ...


6

You can do this manually using the hex/base58check converter (such as the converter on brainwallet.org) Remove the starting 1 and convert from base58 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX to hex: 25c7415deb828c49ccb799c452ae17589bca1af2 (make sure result is 24 bytes) Remove last 4 bytes to get a 20-byte hash: 25c7415deb828c49ccb799c452ae17589bca1af2 -> ...


5

If you want to be pretty sure nobody can retrieve the Bitcoins: Look at the wiki article on Addresses. Start at point 3 with an obviously fake number (like, "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000") Continue with points 4-9. You get a "valid" address for destroying Bitcoins. What is the catch? As normally you'd generate the public key from a private key ...


5

There is no way to determine (that I can imagine) the number of lost private keys, you would have to make a guess that after x years without movement the private key is lost but that would just be a guess.


4

If you want to use an address, it would be nice to generate an address that can be verified by a human as obviously unspendable just by looking at the Base58. When you look at these addresses, you will say, "wow, that is obviously unspendable." 1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr <- used by Counterparty 1ChancecoinXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXZELUFD <- used by ...


2

It is highly improbable there will every be a genuine need to make "Bitcoin 2.0". The Bitcoin network can be modified over time to incorporate new features, and improvements. This evolving software model makes the need for a "clean break" unlikely. In a similar fashion that while the internet evolved far beyond its original concept, we never turned off the ...


2

The solution would actually be simple. A specific transaction could be added to the BTC1 protocol that means "transfer these coins to the BTC2 chain". Those mining BTC2 would also need to follow the BTC1 hash chain and permit transactions that import Bitcoins from the BTC1 chain, provided they're signed with the key the Bitcoins were exported to. The ...


2

It's possible to send your BTC1 to any unknown or invalid BTC1 address. (Not with the standard bitcoin client though.) With scripting enabled, there would be even more possibilities to send your bitcoins to nowhere. This would allow the BTC2 protocol to accept BTC1 non-spendable transaction-outputs as base for BTC2 transactions. To be certain that the ...


1

what is 111...1114oLvT2? See also here, it explains in detail on the logic behind „proof of burn“, including op_return. why 14,270 BTC? We cannot know. Pure speculation would be, that people write scripts, to do a proof of burn. Or also, they could provide a P2SH tx, where the hash of a text is provided. Think of it as „I can proof, that I had ...


1

since the government controls the physical internet They do not (at least in North America or Europe). The internet is a network of communication. An Internet Service Provider (ISP) can be private or public, but either way it's function is to direct addressed transmissions to those addresses (IP addresses). This network is a kind of base layer. The early ...


1

A digital currency with user-defined anonymity will cause any estimates to simply be guesstimates. There are other areas where studies have attempted to quantify something and simply have concluded there is no reliable way to come up with the number so rather than provide misinformation there simply is no estimate made. Essentially you could give a ...


1

If you just want to make it clear that you no longer own them you can just send yourself 1 santoshi and put the rest up as a fee. If you want to destroy them there are a couple decent address to send them to in What is the Bitcoin equivalent of /dev/null? EDIT: there are better answers here: How to generate a valid bitcoin address for destroying bitcoins?


1

Bitcoins can be divided up infinitely. So if there was just one bitcoin left (the rest are lost) then there can still be a viable economy with fractions of bitoins. Lost wallets are only a problem for the people who lost them, not for bitcoin. It would of course limit supply and push the the cost of bitcoins versus other currencies.


1

Why destroy the coins? This post at bitcointalk.org discusses using Bitcoin for email micropostage, in a similar way to Hashcash.


1

I don't think anyone is intentionally destroying large amounts of Bitcoin. Some relatively large amounts have been destroyed accidentally, due to hardware and software failures. This thread is an attempt to count all the lost Bitcoins. Don't forget that each of the 21 million total Bitcoins is divisible into 100 million parts. So it's considered that ...


1

The methods described by DeathAndTaxes are appropriate. The OP_RETURN method is clearly the best if you want to adhere to the bitcoin recommendations. However, I would like to present an alternative method where you can provably burn coins and also include sufficient information in the address. We used this method in the first versions of OpenBazaar and it ...


1

Bitcoin or "btc1" already has a mechanism built in to prevent this; it is free open-source software. It would make much more sense (for the majority of people) to improve upon Bitcoin than to make a new blockchain. To answer your question, a mechanism like your talking about does not exist in the Bitcoin core code. Nor do I think it should exist at present....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible